The first thing this report does is quote Gathering Feedback for Teaching--the Met Project, funded, of course, by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, holders of the copyright.

After funding Denver to develop a 28-page rubric for teacher
evaluation, Gates entrepreneurs are now saying teacher evaluation rubrics
are too complex--and result in too many teachers being rated "good" or
"great."

The Fixers demand that the teacher be judged on lessons based on Common Core grade level standards that give all
students regular practice with complex grade-level text in language
arts as well as all students working extensively with grade-level math
problems.

We are told that TNTP (The New Teacher Project: Founded by Michelle
Rhee) is currently developing a rubric that will prompt teacher raters to
search the Common Core standards for language arts and math to ground
conversations about lesson content in the language of the relevant
standards.

And get this: This idea can eventually expand to include local standards in other subjects.

Local standards in other subjects as an aside--something to consider eventually.

The report writers concede that "observation rubrics can take time
to design, negotiate and deploy," and "schools may need high-quality
tools that they can use immediately."

Not to fear: Student Achievement Partners (co-founded by David Coleman) steps forward with the Solution: Student Achievement Partners' Instructional Practice Guides,
which "support coaching and prof essional development. . . as states
and districts work to adapt their official observation rubric."

Take a look at their definition of a high quality text:

The text(s) are at or above the complexity level expected for the grade and time in the school year